Walks on the edge of survival. Most non-profits rely on outside funding.
An organization that is set up to serve the people and not make a profit is
usually a careful balance unless they have a perpetual endowment.
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-bou
I have been of the thought process that Broadband needs to be compared to
electricity and telephone service expansion and deployments of the early
1900's. Here is a nice article that draws a direct comparison to electricity
(and municipal networks). Should be good food for though to all:
The Kille
There's only one thing you REALLY need to know about it:
The TVA was the source of much fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.So
was the REA.
Creating monopolies has resulted in highly inefficient business models for
electricity, and there's only space in this game for "big corporations".
Ju
According to Ubiquiti themselves and the FCC:
This equipment is required to be professionally installed
The device has been designed to operate with the antennas listed below
and having a maximum gain of 30dBi. Antennas not included in this list
or having a gain greater than 30dBi are strictly
BTW, it WAS an interesting article.
My comment on it was that until the Seattle area governments manage to
actually DO something... anything. You know, accomplish at least ONE thing
they're charged with... YOu know, like end crime, fill the potholes, educate
the children, or any of the other
Yeap! how they are selling the units as APs with the sectors ...hmmm
Gino A. Villarini
g...@aeronetpr.com
Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
787.273.4143
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Matt Jenkins
Sent: Tuesday, Decembe
Is that saying any antenna with less than 30dBi gain is within the
rules? Have they relaxed the rules on certification? Just curious.
At 12:04 PM 12/15/2009, Matt wrote:
>According to Ubiquiti themselves and the FCC:
>
>This equipment is required to be professionally installed
>
>The device h
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:30, MDK wrote:
> Why is it we think that the same people who cannot clean up Hanford (they
> have yet to clean ONE SINGLE TANK OF WASTE in decades of effort!) despite
> decades of promises and countless billions in budget overruns, cannot
> regulate the banks, who ran
Each antenna should within it's specifications list the wind load to
be expected from that antenna. You just add them up per height.
I'm not sure that chart is accurate for wind / ice loading. The last
I looked, I was in a 70mph / 0 ice zone. That chart has me in a 40mph
/ .75 ice zone. We get
Mark,
You really sound like a broken record with every topic you post.
I posted the article to force people to think outside the box in regards to
broadband and what we think of how it is used today and the fact that we
cannot necessarily conceive all the uses in the future. Keeping an open
> Have they relaxed the rules on certification?
No they have not.
Most likely Ubiquiti has done this to avoid having to put peak power limits
on their radio hardware.
26db radio + 7 dbi omni = 33db, less than 36db allowable limit.
If they included larger sector antennas to be certified with the
Has anyone seen any errata on Canopy CMM Micros that shows a remote
reboot type of vulnerability?
Firmware:
CANOPY CMM 2.2 Build 2 Feb 23 2006 16:45:22
Marco
--
Marco C. Coelho
Argon Technologies Inc.
POB 875
Greenville, TX 75403-0875
903-455-5036
-
They are perfectly legal until you connect up that second CPE then they
are operating in a PTMP fashion and you (the operator) are violating FCC
rules.
Gino Villarini wrote:
> Yeap! how they are selling the units as APs with the sectors ...hmmm
>
> Gino A. Villarini
> g...@aeronetpr.com
> Aero
Not specifically but we have seen MTU problems and switch strangeness.
Try the 3.X firmware. It is a huge improvement.
-Jon
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Marco Coelho wrote:
> Has anyone seen any errata on Canopy CMM Micros that shows a remote
> reboot type of vulnerability?
> Firmware:
>
> CA
Huge imporvement in what way?
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf
Of Jon Auer
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:41 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Canopy CMM issue.
Not specifically but we have seen MTU proble
The interface (HTTP/Telnet) doesn't lock up if you try accessing it
over a lower MTU link (VPN over DSL, for example).
You get port mirroring which is handy for diagnostics and CALEA.
Multiple SNMP accessing subnet and trap destination addresses.
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
Ok guys,
I know I am not a networking genius, but I think something is wrong with
this range of ip addresses that my new provider is assigning me.
I have been told the range of ip's will be x.x.53.0 ... x.x.64.255.
I questioned them if if should not be x.x.53.0 ... x.x.63.255. This
would give a
Correction to the starting ip.
x.x.56.0
Guess I can't type.
Data Technology wrote:
> Ok guys,
> I know I am not a networking genius, but I think something is wrong
> with this range of ip addresses that my new provider is assigning me.
> I have been told the range of ip's will be x.x.53.0 ... x.x
A /21 is 8 blocks of IP addresses. So if it starts at x.x.56.0 then it
would end at x.x.63.255
- Matt
Data Technology wrote:
> Correction to the starting ip.
> x.x.56.0
> Guess I can't type.
>
> Data Technology wrote:
>> Ok guys,
>> I know I am not a networking genius, but I think something is
Sorry for bringing up an old topic but I thought about it last night and it
should be touched on. We are all in extremely commoditized industries where
margins are thin and streamlined operations are a key to success. In these
types of businesses, every little bit counts. Finding a one size f
That's the way I figured it.
I currently have a /21 and they were saying I barely could justify a /22
which was ok with me.
I have put my bridgeed wireless units on private ip's so I could make
due for a while with a /22.
I just got another reply from my new provider. Looks like they are
plan
My head is cloudy here.. So 5.8 CPE can be used with a 30dbi antenna?
I can see that but it that true that it can be considered a ptp just because
it's only talking to one far point yet the AP is ptmp? I see the logic but
the FCC will go for that?
Bob-
-Original Message-
From: w
Of course they don't.Now, can you provide me ANY evidence to back up the
notion that government is basically utterly incompetent at most things,
especially when it comes to providing services to us?
Of course not.Every agency, service, etc, is prime evidence for why I
think precisely as
There's lots of thinking outside the box. It is interesting... but like a
broken record, every time someone says "we need think out side the box" the
automatic response is "have government do it" as if that's "innovation".
Cripes.
And yes, I'm a broken record.I watch people on this list d
Yeah, that's kind of true.But I'm not quite understanding your context.
Utilities, that is, gas, electricity, etc, are generally private companies
and get their rates set for them. All they have to do to get a rate
increase is prove they're losing money.
While they're always careful to sh
It could be because not all facets of "government" is bad and not all are
good. When a group of people get to be a a certain size, the need for
government, or the tending to common needs, arise. The idea of government
is totally rational and reasonable, how it's executed is the cause of the
varia
This is the truth. I worked in Senior Management at a REA. Hated the
mentality. -RickG
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM, MDK wrote:
> There's only one thing you REALLY need to know about it:
>
> The TVA was the source of much fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars.So
> was the REA.
>
> Creating
No, but our forefathers did!
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David E. Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:30, MDK wrote:
>
> > Why is it we think that the same people who cannot clean up Hanford (they
> > have yet to clean ONE SINGLE TANK OF WASTE in decades of effort!) despite
> > decad
"Professionally"? Specifically a holder of which FCC license?
On Dec 15, 2009, at 1:04 PM, Matt Jenkins wrote:
> According to Ubiquiti themselves and the FCC:
>
> This equipment is required to be professionally installed
>
> The device has been designed to operate with the antennas listed below
So far as I can tell, there is no real answer to that question.
What is a "professional" and who is, and how do they become one... Nobody
has a good answer for.
--
From:
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:53 PM
To: "WISPA General List"
Subject
I don't believe there is an official answer. I believe "professional"
simply means someone that knows their rear from a hole in the ground.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
--
From:
Sent: Tuesday, Decemb
On Dec 15, 2009, at 5:27 PM, MDK wrote:
> There's lots of thinking outside the box. It is interesting... but like a
> broken record, every time someone says "we need think out side the box" the
> automatic response is "have government do it" as if that's "innovation".
> Cripes.
>
> And yes,
The proverbial "Gray Area" open to the interpretation of whomever is looking
to cause you trouble.
-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Hammett
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 11:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: R
33 matches
Mail list logo
